David Evennett: When we debated this issue yesterday, the Government appeared totally complacent. With more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training and with the second highest level of youth unemployment in Europe, this Government have let down a generation of young people. Is not the Minister ashamed? As we face another looming crisis this year on university applications, will he take up our proposals, which have been fully costed and funded, for an additional 10,000 university places?

Kevin Brennan: We are neither ashamed nor complacent, and we will not take up that proposal for the reason I set out in yesterday's debate-because it is not properly funded. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that in respect of young people and unemployment, the key issue is how quickly people move out of unemployment and into work. Six month-plus 18-to-24 unemployment is currently 108,800; in 1997, it was 169,000; in 1993, it was 415,000; and in 1985, during the last Conservative Government, it was 600,000-six times as many people in that age group unemployed for six months or more. That is the difference between us and them.

David Lammy: That is why I set up the independent review led by Sir Deian Hopkin. I think that we all recognise that serious issues have arisen in relation to the Student Loans Company's performance this year. Its chair and chief executive have apologised, and I am pleased that it has now dealt with the backlog. Many thousands of applications continue to come in, as many students have been delaying their seeking finance. What is important is for next year's process to be far better than this year's, and that is the undertaking that the chair and chief executive have made.

Patrick McFadden: It is always difficult to comment on one case on the hoof, but with the Department of Energy and Climate Change we have published a low carbon economic strategy. We have put considerable Government resources behind that, a significant part of which is support for the development and manufacture of low-carbon vehicles here in the UK. Low-carbon industries are an essential part of our economic future, and that is why we have put in resources behind them.

Andy Reed: A number of measures such as advanced technology and manufacturing and low carbon fuel vehicles have made a significant difference, but what can Ministers do to assist manufacturing companies that are still struggling with credit insurance? Several local companies have approached me to say that they are still struggling with that scheme. If Ministers can make some suggestions about how they can assist, that would be very helpful.

Patrick McFadden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of manufacturing. That is why we have given it support, and why I am so disappointed that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) described that support as a disgrace. I disagree with his those on his Front Bench, and I am glad that he does too.

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 18 January will be:
	Monday 18 January-Second Reading of the Crime and Security Bill.
	Tuesday 19 January-Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 3).
	Wednesday 20 January-Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill.
	Thursday 21 January-Topical debate: Subject to be announced, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords' Amendments to the Video Recordings Bill: to follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 25 January will include:
	Monday 25 January-Remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill.
	Tuesday 26 January-Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 4).
	Wednesday 27 January-Opposition Day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 28 January-Topical debate: Subject to be announced; to follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Friday 29 January-Private Member's Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 January will be:
	Thursday 28 January-A debate from the Environmental Audit Committee on carbon capture and storage.

George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for telling us next week's business.
	The whole country will be haunted by the traumatic images that are emerging from Haiti as the devastating scale of the disaster there becomes clearer. Many British non-governmental organisations are now mobilising disaster appeals. Given that in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 tsunami, millions of people donated hundreds of millions of pounds to the relief fund, I am sure that the British people will again respond with generosity. I am also sure that all colleagues will want to support fundraising events in their constituencies over the weekend. We welcome yesterday's statement from the International Development Secretary, and we hope that he will continue to keep the House informed over coming weeks. In addition, might he consider this issue as a subject for next week's topical debate?
	Where is the debate on the Wright report? It has not yet appeared on the parliamentary radar. The Government's handling of the report makes the case, more effectively even than the report put it, for the Government relinquishing their iron grip on the business of the House. They dithered for five weeks at the beginning of the process, before the Wright Committee was set up, and now they are dithering at the end. The Committee set the lowest of all possible hurdles at the beginning of the course by asking for a debate within eight weeks, but the Government have totally failed to clear that hurdle. It is not just the House that is impatient for change, but the whole country, so when will the Government hold a debate on the Wright report, and will there be a decision at the end of it?
	Following today's report from the National Audit Office, may we have a debate on the Government's dementia strategy? The strategy was launched with much fanfare earlier last year, but we now learn from the NAO that Ministers have failed to make the disease a priority, that they show no signs of fulfilling their pledge to provide memory clinics across the UK and that they are unable to prove that the money set aside for the strategy is even reaching those who need it. So, may we have a debate on that crucial report?
	May we also have a statement on minimum pricing for alcohol? For months, the Government have said that that idea is, in the words of the Home Secretary, a "non-runner", but an article in yesterday's edition of the  Daily Telegraph stated that a scheme led by the Health Secretary will fix prices for alcohol units in order to crack down on supermarkets selling cheap drink. Is that a Government U-turn?
	Again, may I ask when we will get the dates for the Easter recess? Last week, the Leader of the House claimed that she would publish them "in the usual way", but the usual way is to publish all the recess dates for the year ahead, once, in October. When is she going to end this state of uncertainty?
	Is the right hon. and learned Lady any clearer about whether she will give additional time to debate the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill? There is an important new clause on implementing the Kelly measures, and, if the Government have resolved their internal differences, on voting reform of the House. The House will want to scrutinise both those elements, so will she guarantee an extra two days in Committee for the Bill?
	Finally, may we have a statement on the election night count? A number of senior figures, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, have said that it would be, in your words, "a travesty" for the count to be delayed by local authorities until the next day. Yesterday, no less a figure than the Government Chief Whip told his local paper that delaying the count would increase the risk of electoral fraud. Is there any doubt that having a Thursday night count is the right thing to do?

Harriet Harman: I fully support the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the devastation and tragedy unfolding in Haiti. He will remember that the Secretary of State for International Development answered an urgent question about it yesterday. Indeed, the subject of Haiti and of British Government and international support for Haitians at this time was dealt with by the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's questions. I can tell the House that our search and rescue teams, who are recognised throughout the world as having great expertise and experience, have landed in the Dominican Republic and will shortly arrive in Haiti. They will be working on search and rescue, but Department for International Development humanitarian assessment work will also be done, so that, as the search and rescue carries on, the further needs for shelter, water supplies, medicine and food will be assessed. The work of the disaster assessment and co-ordination team is under way, and it will continue to keep the House updated regularly. Of course, we all support such voluntary work, as well as charitable donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee fund.
	As far as the Wright Committee report is concerned, I said to the House last week that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate it and that there will be an opportunity for the House to make decisions. We strongly believe in strengthening the role of the House of Commons and that making it more effective is essential to restoring public trust in our political system. That is why the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Wright Committee last summer and why I brought to the House the motion to establish it and got the House's support.
	We have already had a 90-minute debate on the report in Westminster Hall last month, in which 17 colleagues participated, and an opportunity to debate and approve the principle of the election of Deputy Speakers by ballot, which was a Wright Committee recommendation. However, this is a complex matter on which the Government will have to take a view about what it is right to bring to the House. The report was not unanimous in all respects, and there are some complex issues to consider. We want to ensure that we offer the House the right opportunity and that we do not dictate to the House on the matter.
	I do not want anybody to misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman's comments as somehow meaning that the Government have stood still on improving how the House works. We have already introduced major reforms to modernise the House, including evidence-taking Public Bill Committees, pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, greater resources and core tasks for Select Committees, Regional Committees, topical questions, which we have just heard, and topical debates. We have not stood still, but we do have further to go and the Wright Committee will be an important step forward when we bring its issues to the House. I can confirm that the House will have an opportunity to debate the report and decide on its recommendations.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the important question of dementia and the National Audit Office report. He will remember that it was just a year ago that we established the first national dementia strategy, which is on track. It is very important work that is fundamental to work in primary care, in the community, in hospital-based health care and in social care. It is work across the piece and we fully accept that it will not be completed in one year, but it is under way and it is a priority. We will obviously look in detail at the NAO report.
	As far as the recess is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is already complaining about the announcement of the Easter recess when we have not yet even got to the February recess. Again, I would not want him to create the wrong impression, and he knows that although Members of Parliament work in the House, we also work in our constituencies. We work in two places at once, and I would not want him to curry favour with those people who would like to imply that when we are not here in this House we are on holiday. That is not the case.
	As far as progress on the Queen's Speech programme is concerned, we have had 13 Second Readings since the Queen's Speech and we are well under way. We will consider what amount of time needs to be given to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill when we bring forward the new clauses to implement Kelly, on which there have been talks with all the party leaders.
	I have two concerns about election night. The first is that the count should be announced as soon as the people have voted, and the second is that it should be the right result.

David Heath: The Wright Committee produced a draft motion for the House two months ago and it is still not on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House says that she is keen to facilitate it. I hope that she will tell us when she is keen not to facilitate something, because it will be a long time coming.
	Last February, the Prime Minister said:
	"The old short-term bonus culture is gone. No rewards for failure...the old bonus culture removed".
	I seem to have read this week that it is expected that about £40 billion will be paid out in bonuses this year, so may we have regular updates on that clearly very successful policy?
	To renew a request from last week, may we have a debate on agriculture in the light of the Government's proposals for its future, the welcome announcement yesterday of the supply chain ombudsman and the ongoing difficulties faced on an everyday basis by people in rural areas, such as farm crime and fly-tipping? It is time that we had a proper debate on agriculture, so will the Leader of the House find time for it?
	May we have a debate on public performance rights and music copyright licences? I do not know how well it is known that a new scheme that is to come into place in April will mean that anyone who switches on a radio or plays music in any bed and breakfast, pub, office, charity or carnival float, indeed any public place, will need a licence. I am the first to defend the right of musicians to receive proper recompense for their work, but that is an over-onerous burden to place on people across the country who will not be expecting it. We should debate that requirement because it seems excessive.
	Finally, the Leader of the House committed a heinous crime against the English language this week when she coined the word "wellderly", meaning well and elderly. Although some old people are well and elderly, may we concentrate on the "illderly" and the "poorderly"? May we have a debate on the fact that millions of pensioners in this country will not receive severe weather payments, after the cold weather of the past few weeks, simply because, although they are eligible for pension tax credits, they do not claim them, and so do not qualify for those severe weather payments? Given the extreme conditions, we should be worried about that, and I think that the House should have an opportunity to debate it.

Harriet Harman: I have answered fully the question about the Wright Committee in response to the shadow Leader of the House, and I do not want to detain the House further on that because a number of hon. Members want to get in. I therefore have nothing further to add to what I said a couple of minutes ago when I responded to the shadow Leader of the House.
	On bonuses, we believe that people find it objectionable that people get big bonuses, particularly when they appear not to have contributed but actually to have made matters worse. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will know that we have taken action through the Financial Services Authority, and in many other respects, to curb the risk-taking bonus culture. He will also know that we are looking to tackle the deficit through a tax on the pool that companies set aside for bonuses. He will also know that we want to have a new tight rein on public sector bonuses, which is especially important for the highly paid given that we are looking to reduce the deficit by half over the next four years. He will know that the Treasury Select Committee has been hearing from Ministers on the great range of measures being taken to deal with soar-away bonuses in the private sector and to encourage proper restraint in public sector bonuses.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about food and agriculture, and I agree that we need to look for an opportunity to debate those things. Matters for consideration include not just food production and the food 2030 programme of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the rural economy and the interaction between supermarkets and consumer protection, so we might look to find time to debate that. On music copyright, Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions are next week, and it would probably be better for him to try to raise that question then.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the elderly, on whom we have debates relatively frequently-the last one was before we rose for the summer recess. He says that some people are well and elderly, but I would say that he has stressed the wrong emphasis. There is a new cohort-it represents a massive demographic change-of a large number of people who are over 65 but healthy, well, active and energetic and who have a great deal to contribute to their families, local communities and the economy. They are well and elderly, but we need the appropriate focus to be on the frail and elderly-those who are vulnerable, dependent and who have dementia. Actually, however, in this day and age, the overwhelming majority of elderly people are not like that, and it is about time that public policy recognised that fact. And if he can think of a better word than "wellderly", I would like to hear it.

Harriet Harman: I am sorry, but I shall have to have a "Western Sahara moment" on that one and get back to the right hon. Gentleman.

Chris Mullin: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend might not have any more to say on the Wright proposals, but I do. I appreciate also that they are ultimately a matter for the House, but could the Government show a little more enthusiasm about them? Because were we to vote down everything that has been proposed, that would damage the entire political system and us as a class; and the way things are going, I think that we are headed in that direction.

Harriet Harman: We are absolutely not headed in the direction of voting down all the proposals of the Wright Committee. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that the issues are complex. We want to ensure that we have unanimity and consensus, and that we start from a firm foundation, building on the Wright Committee's proposals, and that is what we will do.

Barry Gardiner: The application of stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was found by the European Court of Human Rights earlier this week to be illegal. Although members of the public of course want to know that the police use such powers to protect them, they equally want to be assured that they are not being used to go on fishing expeditions by the police. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that we have an opportunity to debate the matter at some length?

Harriet Harman: These powers are very important indeed to protect our security, and they are only used sparingly. We do not accept the Court's judgment and we are appealing it. While we are appealing it, as we are perfectly entitled to do, our law stands and the police will continue to have it at their disposal.

Ian Cawsey: The recent severe weather again underlines the need for reliable and convenient public transport services, yet many of our smaller railway stations remain underused. Tomorrow I will chair another round- table meeting to try to make more use of our local stations, but with so many different bodies involved since privatisation, experience shows that doing so is a bit like wading through treacle. Can we therefore have a debate on the rail network and how we can simplify procedures to allow local decisions on what the best solutions are for each area?

Martin Salter: The Leader of the House has, certainly until now, enjoyed a justifiable reputation as a parliamentary reformer, but who can doubt that this place is still in need of reforming its arcane and antediluvian procedures and practices? However, with yet another business statement failing to announce time for a debate and a vote on the Wright report, does she not realise that she is, perhaps unfairly, in danger of being portrayed as a roadblock to reform, unless this House gets a specific date and time in the next couple of weeks?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of my reputation, but what is important is not my reputation, but the reputation of this House and the fact that we need to make progress to restore public confidence. We have already taken many steps along that road, in sorting out the parliamentary allowance system and reforming how the House does its business, and building on that is very much the next step.

Nicholas Winterton: Would the Leader of the House accept that the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons was established to honour a commitment made by the Prime Minister to restore integrity and independence to the Chamber? Is that not a good reason to bring forward the Wright report for a full day's debate and for decisions by the House on a free vote? We want this House's integrity and independence to be restored, so that there is power for the Back Benchers in this Chamber.

Keith Vaz: I refer the House to the Register of Members' Financial Interests. When can we have a debate on the situation in the Yemen? The Leader of the House will know that, thanks to the generosity of Mr. Speaker, an urgent question was answered last week. However, since then the date for the conference has been moved, from 28 January to 27 January. The German Foreign Minister has flown to Sana'a and a British hostage is still being held in Yemen. Surely we should have a full debate on that important subject and not just be left to ask questions of the Foreign Secretary in the House.

Harriet Harman: I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise that Chilcot is independent, and that is it not the job of the House to breathe down the neck of an independent inquiry before it has even reported. The time for the House to debate the Chilcot inquiry will be after it has reported.

Denis MacShane: May we have an early debate on the globalisation of homophobia as politics, the ugliest example of which is in Uganda? Why is DFID sending so much money to countries that promote anti-gay politics? And when will our faiths-including the Church of England, the Church of Rome and the Muslim Council of Britain-condemn the new international politics that seeks to oppress gays in many parts of the world?

John Mason: The Calman commission has recommended that certain extra powers be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. There is cross-party agreement on a lot of those powers being transferred, including the one relating to the drink-drive limit. We have a problem of deaths being caused by people who have drunk too much alcohol, and I believe that tomorrow is the deadline for the Government to make moves towards transferring the powers. Will they do that?

Julian Lewis: Mine is a western Southampton question, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Prime Minister himself said that the people of Southampton and Totton would decide whether their water should be fluoridated, and that both the Labour Southampton MPs, including a member of the Cabinet, have said that it should not be fluoridated-for the time being at least-because of the 72 per cent. opposition to the proposal, may we have a statement from a health Minister explaining why a health spokesman in the House of Lords said in a written answer on behalf of the Government:
	"We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2009; Vol. 715, c. WA239.]?

Harriet Harman: If hon. Members want to make a point in business questions, that is obviously fine, but if they actually want an answer to a specific, detailed question, it is probably best to let me know what they are likely to ask, so that I can give them a better-informed answer than the one that I am about to give, which is that I will ask the Health Secretary to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Barry Sheerman: May we have an early debate on the long-term effects on our constituencies and our country of foreign takeovers of UK companies? In Yorkshire, we have had Walmart taking over Asda with disastrous results, and Nestlé taking over Rowntree. Now, Cadbury is possibly going to be taken over by Kraft or Hershey. These events can have a considerable effect on our constituencies and our country. Let us have a serious debate on the long-term effects of foreign ownership of British companies.

Paul Burstow: May I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 42, which deals with carers?
	 [That this House notes that in the National Strategy for Carers the Government pledged that by 2018 carers will be supported so that they are not forced into financial hardship by their caring role; believes that carers cannot wait because too many are living in poverty and financial hardship now, struggling to afford the basic costs of living, unable to study or work without their benefits being cut off, or facing the removal of their allowance when they start to claim their pension; further notes that the UK's six million carers save the country an estimated 87 billion per year, and that in return, the main carer's benefit is the lowest of its kind, paid at only 53.10 a week for a minimum of 35 hours caring, equivalent to 1.52 per hour, far short of the national minimum wage of 5.73 per hour; supports the Carer's Poverty Charter signed by the Alzheimer's Society, Carers UK, Citizens Advice, Contact a Family, Counsel and Care, Crossroads Caring for Carers, Every Disabled Child Matters, for dementia, Mencap, Macmillan Cancer, Motor Neurone Disease Society, National Autistic Society, Oxfam, Parkinson's Disease Society, Princess Royal Trust for Carers, Rethink, Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and Vitalise; and calls on the Government to set out an urgent timetable of action to improve carers' benefits and income that protects carers from falling into poverty or financial hardship, reflects carers' different circumstances, helps carers to combine caring with paid work and study and is easy to understand and straightforward to claim.]
	May I ask for a debate on the evidence produced by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care, which shows that, in many parts of the country last year, the NHS siphoned off millions of pounds that was meant to have paid for the breaks and other support that carers need? We need to have that debate, so that we can establish whether Ministers have learned the lessons in the first year of having money made available for that purpose, so that we can ensure that all the money-£100 million in the coming year-actually gets to the carers.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Post Office is a much-valued, much-used and much-loved brand. When can we have a debate to ask the Government to put more services through the Post Office and Royal Mail, to ensure that there are no more closures? Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow us an early debate in order to support the post office network?

Peter Bone: Business questions are, especially for Back-Bench MPs, one of the most important parts of the parliamentary week, and not only because the deputy Prime Minister answers those questions so excellently. Will the Leader of the House-sorry, I mean the deputy Prime Minister-explain why the February recess starts on a Wednesday rather than a Thursday, which means that we will miss the opportunity to hear her on Thursday 11 February?

Harriet Harman: Well, I have nothing at all to say in response to that. I just have nothing to say, sorry!

Harriet Harman: The Committee itself acknowledged that there were very complex issues at stake, some of which required further work and some of which were ready to bring forward. Indeed, we have already dealt with the question of electing the Deputy Speakers. We will make progress, but it is not a simple straightforward issue on which there was unanimity. We are as concerned as anyone else, if not more so, to ensure that the reputation of the House should be held in high regard. We will make sure that these measures can be taken forward.

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded to the statement. He raised two points: the timing of the statement, and the source of the funding. We had hoped to make a statement before the Christmas recess-and I had told the NAC that I would try to make the news public so that, if possible, thalidomiders would know about it before Christmas. Unfortunately, due to some internal issues in respect of funding and some legal issues that we wanted to resolve, we were not able to make certain final decisions until after the recess had commenced, but because I had made the commitment that we would try to get the message out before Christmas, I issued a press statement on 23 December so that thalidomiders were made aware that the £20 million will be available and that that has been confirmed. However, I wanted to make the statement of regret to the House, and that has now been done.
	The £20 million in funding will be paid up front, before the end of the financial year, to the Thalidomide Trust as a lump sum. That was requested by the NAC in its negotiations, and we were able to agree to it. The money comes from the contingency central funds that are held by the Department, and therefore no funding will be diverted from other sources in order to meet this.

David Heath: May I also strongly welcome the Minister's statement? I accept entirely what he said about the timing of the announcement to the House; it was very important to put that information into the public domain, and I am glad he did so on this occasion.
	I am also glad that the Minister paid tribute to the campaigners who have worked so hard on the issue-not only those in the trust, but those in both Houses of Parliament who have taken up the issue along with members of the press. There has been a long-standing and concerted campaign, and it has been conducted with enormous perseverance. We should pay tribute to those involved for what they have achieved. They have secured not only payments that were entitled from the successors to the original company that marketed the drug, Distillers, but also-oddly, perhaps, in the context of such an awful thing happening to so many people-the real benefit and advance represented by the Medicines Act 1968. I am glad that the Minister mentioned that, because it provides a huge legacy of proper and good regulation based on sound science. I hope the Minister agrees that these events underline the importance of having a proper testing regime with high vigilance following the issuing of a marketing licence, including-to make a controversial point-animal testing because that is the only way the gestation of drugs can be assessed. The Act is a lasting legacy.
	Can the Minister confirm that the research on the needs of the thalidomiders that is part of this package will be relevant to a wider group of people who are now experiencing the onset of old age, with the disability and all the mobility problems that that involves? In some respects, we have little relevant experience of helping people with disability as they get older, so there are lessons to be learned here that can be applied to the wider community. I also welcome the fact that the Minister said no funding programmes will be de-prioritised as a result of the action he has announced today.
	Tributes have been paid to Members in the other place. In addition, I want to pay tribute to Members of this House, and especially the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who tabled early-day motion 779 in the last Session, which was signed by 275 Members from both sides of the House. If I may sound one note of dissent, I was saddened at the time that those 275 Members did not include the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the Conservative Front-Bench team. I know that it was a matter of great concern for the Thalidomide Trust that those Members were unable to provide support at that stage. However, I entirely accept the comments today by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and I am glad that the House has come together to support this very important initiative.

Mike O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I pay tribute to his work and that of the all-party group, which has strongly supported the national advisory council in its campaign. I agree that Nick Dobrik, Guy Tweedy and their colleagues have been robust in their campaign. I have on occasion been robust in response, but I have also sought, as my hon. Friend says, to apply an open mind to this matter. I have also sought to give a sense that I care about how it has been dealt with in the past and that we needed to make progress and identify a way to help the thalidomiders to deal with some of the health issues that they have convinced me that they would face if we did not provide this support.
	When I talked to some of the family members, it struck me that the expression of regret was important for them. It is also important for many of the thalidomiders in terms of recognising that some of the families who care for the most severely disabled thalidomiders have had a very difficult time for a long period. I pay tribute to the care that those families provide-they do this out of love and for no other reason. It is important to many of them that a statement of regret should come from a Minister on behalf of the Government collectively in this way and that, coupled with it, some extra help should be provided.

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his question. I, too, remember the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), and the meetings that I had, both before and afterwards, with some of the thalidomiders and their families made a profound impression on me.
	T he hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to find ways to resolve much more quickly the wider issues in relation to negligence claims against the NHS. I have had experience of this with a constituent of mine, because we have been trying for some years to get a payment from the NHS for a negligence case. The distress and trauma caused by the delay in making the payment were very unhelpful, and we need to find ways to resolve these issues much more quickly. Sometimes lawyers come in for a lot of criticism, but on this occasion the departmental lawyers were very helpful in trying to resolve some of the issues in terms of making this payment.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that lawyers were advising Ministers over a long period of time that words had to be used with care because they carry weight and that caution had to be exercised in admitting liability. However, there are ways of saying things and of ensuring that the intentions and the thrust of what the Government want to convey are put across in a way that carries weight and deals with some of the legal issues. Department of Health lawyers were helpful in doing that. May I, too, add my thanks to the lawyers who represent the national advisory council, who were brilliantly helpful in ensuring that we were able to resolve these matters satisfactorily?

Mike O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend. She has played a leading part in the recent campaign, which has been very much in the tradition of the work done by Lord Ashley and Lord Morris, who have articulated many of the concerns of thalidomiders in this House and in Parliament as a whole. It has ensured that the thalidomiders' voice is heard, and I pay tribute to her.
	My hon. Friend is right that there is a lot to be said for the innovative and progressive way in which the Thalidomide Trust has been able to make provision for thalidomiders and to help them deal with some of the issues that they have to deal with. I share in her expression of congratulation to the thalidomiders as a whole for the way in which they have been able to deal with some of the disabilities that have been visited on them.

John Hemming: I beg to move,
	To call attention to the complaint of the honourable Member for Birmingham, Yardley, that an email dated 4 August 2009 from Withers LLP, a firm of solicitors, committed a contempt of the House by seeking to intimidate a Member in his parliamentary conduct; and to move that the matter be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise this complaint. If the House agrees with my motion, it will be up to the Standards and Privileges Committee to examine not just the wording used by Withers in their e-mail to me of 4 August, as printed in yesterday's  Hansard just after Mr. Speaker's statement, but the full context of the way in which attempts are being made to intimidate a Member of this House and to deter him, by threats ostensibly directed elsewhere, from exercising that freedom of speech enjoyed by this House as one of the principal foundations of the liberties of the British people.
	This is an issue for the Committee to consider in detail, and detailed submissions will be made to it, but I feel that it is worth giving the House some of the background to the case. It relates to a dispute that has gone for about 10 or 11 years in respect of the Swan area of Yardley and which has been described as "store wars".
	Initially, there was a proposal by Sainsbury to develop the site, but then Tesco put forward an alternative proposal that involved using less green space. For that reason, local politicians supported the Tesco proposal, but then Asda came in and bought a plot of land. Various problems arose. A person called Jeremy Knight-Adams had bought some land there previously, and a compulsory purchase order to buy Mr. Knight-Adam's land was finally arranged last year. He objects to that order, and we distributed a leaflet that refers to the actions of Asda, in particular, and of Sainsbury in buying plots of land. Mr. Knight-Adams has wrongly taken the leaflet as being intended to refer to him.
	The real difficulty for this House arises from the e-mail of 4 August, and also from the great deal of other correspondence that has taken place since. Mr. Knight-Adams has threatened me with proceedings-not related to this House, but directed to a different issue-to prevent me from raising my concerns about the effects being felt by residents of Bakeman House.
	Bakeman House is a sheltered scheme of 120 flats, about 118 of which are occupied by senior citizens. Those most vulnerable people are suffering from living in a building site, where there are all sorts of problems with parking and so on. A developer trying to ransom a plot of land is using spoiling tactics to stop me talking about the matter. He has threatened that he will take proceedings against me, although those proceedings do not mention the House. Obviously, the e-mail of 4 August is very explicit, but there is a lot of other correspondence that will go to the Committee.
	Withers solicitors has issued a short public statement on the matter. With the leave of the House, and to be fair to the company, I shall read the statement to the House, which is as follows:
	"Throughout our client's dispute with John Hemming MP, we have acted entirely properly and professionally in defending our client's reputation. We strongly refute Mr. Hemming's allegations that our actions were intimidatory in any way."
	Obviously, the issue needs to be considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	Finally, the Law Society has also put out a statement. I am not quite sure whether it means that it supports referring the matter to the Committee for consideration, although I think that it does.

Shailesh Vara: We on the Conservative Benches also support the motion, as it clearly impacts on what Members of Parliament can say in this House. We should all be able to speak freely and without fear on any matter that arises as we carry out our duties.
	For the sake of good order, however, there is one matter that I should like to clarify. The e-mail in question refers to materials that have been written and distributed outside the House. I should therefore like to make it clear that my comments are confined to what can be said in the House itself, and that Members of Parliament, like the general public, are of course subject to the normal laws of libel and slander in connection with anything that they say outside the House.
	The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that the Standards and Privileges Committee has a very heavy work load, and that it is important that the matter before us is resolved before the dissolution of Parliament. Will she assure the House that she will make sure that the Committee gets any additional support and back-up-manpower, resources and so on-that it requires? In that way, we can ensure that we resolve this very important matter before the dissolution of Parliament.

David Miliband: This is an issue that I discussed in Pakistan with its leaders last weekend. The Pakistani perspective has been changed significantly the events of the past nine to 12 months. The prospect of the Taliban 70 km from Islamabad, which was the headline not just in the international newspapers but across the Pakistani newspapers last year, was a chilling explanation of the threat that domestic terrorism poses to Pakistan.
	I believe that there is a strong commitment in the Government and the armed forces to take on the campaign against those terrorist groups who threaten Pakistan. However, I counsel two things. First, a military campaign on its own will not undo the political and economic underdevelopment, notably in the FATA. As I have reminded the House before, those agencies still operate under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1903 and political parties are banned. Secondly, the Pakistani authorities need international help, as I shall say a bit later, in a range of areas.
	This year will also revolve around these three issues: security, governance and development, and regional support. That brings me to the Afghanistan conference that will take place here in London in two weeks' time. The conference will be co-chaired by me, my Afghan counterpart, with whom I spoke this morning, and the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, Kai Eide. Invitations have been extended to the Foreign Ministers of all ISAF partner countries, Afghanistan's immediate neighbours and the key regional players, as well as representatives of NATO, the UN, the European Union and other international organisations, including the World Bank.
	As the Prime Minister explained when he announced the conference on 28 November, the aim is
	"to match the increase in military forces with an increased political momentum, to focus the international community on a clear set of priorities across the 43-nation coalition and marshal the maximum international effort to help the Afghan government deliver."

Edward Davey: May I join the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in paying deep gratitude and admiration to all those who have paid with their lives in the conflict in Afghanistan on behalf of this country and their families? We also remember all those who have been wounded-some extremely seriously-in that conflict. I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to journalists, and civilian and non-governmental organisation workers, who are also under threat. Some have lost their lives, most recently the journalist Rupert Hamer.
	We need to spend more time debating Afghanistan in the House. I think we will see an increasing amount of consensus on this subject, particularly following the changes in strategy towards the end of last year. The Government are increasingly emphasising the need for a political strategy to go alongside the military strategy at international, national and local levels. That is extremely welcome. The Foreign Secretary was right to point out a number of strong, positive developments in recent months. Although some have been cynical in reacting to the opinion poll we saw, I think it is very positive. It was the latest of a series of polls that have been run for more than six years, asking the same questions, so it has a degree of strength and credibility, and a foundation, and it points in the right direction.
	There has been a reduction in civilian deaths following the introduction of new strategies by General Stanley McChrystal. That is critical to winning hearts and minds. Most civilian deaths are caused now by Taliban insurgents. The efforts of the Pakistani Government are particularly welcome. Let us hope-the signs are positive-that those will be sustained.
	The announcement that Turkey is to hold the two conferences-the trilateral conference and the wider international conference-is welcome, and I hope the Minister can confirm that China and Iran have agreed to go and talk to Turkey at those conferences. Hopefully, they will assist the preparation for the London conference so that that can be as successful as possible. We have also had reports of successes in the implementation of the counter-insurgency strategy in different Afghan provinces. It is a very early stage, but the reports are positive.
	We should have no illusions: the task is tremendously difficult. As we look ahead and try to push and question the Government to ensure their policy is as good as possible, we need to recognise some aspects of the challenges that perhaps we have not focused on enough. We seem to have a lack of knowledge about the Taliban in their many guises, and about Afghan culture across the many different areas of Afghanistan. We need to do more work and to spend more time on that to ensure that it can feed in to the political strategy, so that we are extremely well informed and so that we can play our part as a true partner to the Afghan authorities. That is why some of us are very worried by the report from the think tank, Centre for a New American Security, by Major General Michael Flynn earlier this year. He talked about the shortcomings in American intelligence, and said that US intelligence in Afghanistan was still
	"unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which US and allied forces operate and the people they are trying to protect and persuade".
	We need to improve the quality of intelligence. That is absolutely critical.
	I wonder how well prepared we are for a rich political strategy in terms understanding how the Taliban respond to the new counter-insurgency. We have reports of a number of assassinations of tribal leaders, commanders and elders who are not linked to the Taliban-they have doubled to nine a week recently, according to some sources. The intimidation of people who might be susceptible to switching sides and playing a key role in reintegrating Taliban people and local people into the mainstream of Afghan politics needs to be understood and dealt with as quickly as possible.
	In the short time that remains to me, I shall ask the Minister a few questions. Have India, Russia and Saudi Arabia been invited to the conferences in Istanbul and London? Have they responded positively? I believe their role is critical. Has the successor for Kai Eide finally been decided? There are reports that the Swedish diplomat Stefan Di Mistura is being considered, but when will an announcement be made? Can Kai Eide's successor play a role in London and begin to meet some of the key players? What is the Government's position on the possibility of parliamentary and district council elections this year? Are they going to go ahead and are we supportive, or do we think that a Loya Jirga or other proposals, some of which come from President Karzai, the best approach?
	On a practical matter, the Foreign Secretary spoke of the importance of training the Afghan national police, but I do not believe the EU has done enough to get enough police trainers out there. It is good that the German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is emphasising that, but can the Government push it too? Finally, President Karzai is coming to London. The London conference is important for putting pressure on him, but the international community and the people of Afghanistan need to ensure that he is living up to his promises. I hope the Government and the American Government continue to put pressure on him, because his role in bringing the conflict to an end is critical.

Denis MacShane: I listened with great interest to all three speeches and agreed very much with what was in them. I have been to Afghanistan once. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Defence Ministers that after 1945, some 200 US congressional delegations visited Germany to talk to General Lucius Clay, who was, as it were, the commanding officer in charge of Germany on behalf of the allies in that period. As a result, there was strong support in the American Congress for the continuation of a policy that previously would have run against American views that, on the whole, one should not get involved in foreign entanglements.
	I have not found a great deal of enthusiasm and support from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office for visits to Afghanistan, other than those, appropriately, for Select Committees. However, I think it would be helpful if many more Members of the House went there. When I went with a NATO delegation to visit Pakistan, I took the opportunity to go to Kabul to meet people and inform myself, but I had to pay for my own trip-more accurately, the Foreign Office paid for the £200 flight on a UN plane, then spent six months asking me for the money back. I am not sure whether that was a claimable expense, but I paid it from my own pocket. Therefore, please will the Foreign Secretary involve the House in the matter of Afghanistan, because every Wednesday since June 2003, the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Opposition parties have had to pay tribute to the men who have fallen in Iraq and now, increasingly, in Afghanistan? The tributes certainly represent what the House and the nation think of those brave sacrifices, but I sometimes question whether the nation will accept those sacrifices, year after year, from our rather small professional Army. The reasons we are in Afghanistan were set out eloquently by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, and the nation needs to know those reasons. Visiting Afghanistan can help with that.
	We also need a sense of history. Afghanistan is presented as a zone of permanent turbulence and violence. In fact, for most of the last 200 years, Afghanistan has been at peace, although yes, it has been poor and underdeveloped. When I was a student at university, Afghanistan was where all the hippies went to buy their Afghan coats, among other things. In the early 1970s, a Marks & Spencer was opened in Kabul. Where Marks & Spencer operates, civilisation often follows. I am not suggesting that it should be a goal of foreign policy to get Marks & Spencer to reopen in Kabul and other Afghan cities, but we should acknowledge that the present conflict is the result of a particular confluence of political decisions emanating from outside Afghanistan.
	Those decisions include the desire to launch jihad, supported by the US and Great Britain, in the 1980s, and the provision of Stinger missiles, paid for by the Saudis and built by the Americans, to the jihadis. We created a monster and were then surprised that, after the Soviets had been driven out of Afghanistan, the monster did not quietly evaporate into thin air. We ignored Afghanistan after 1987 for many years, allowing it to become the incubator and supporter of the Taliban, with the consequence that they gave shelter to Osama bin Laden, which led to the planning of the 9/11 attack.
	After 9/11, the reasonable criticism can be made that we took our focus away from Afghanistan and walked down the road to Iraq. I shall not enter into that debate now, but we should be conscious that more British soldiers have died in what one might call President Obama's war in Afghanistan than in President George W. Bush's war in Iraq. The failure, twice in the last 20 years, to focus due political and strategic attention on Afghanistan has cost us dear.
	I would like to see some unity of command. I referred to General Lucius Clay earlier. He was an engineer and builder, not a fighting general, and he was the supreme governor of Germany in the immediate post-war period until German political institutions were able to get back on their feet. I have no idea who runs Afghanistan. I have no idea which Government department is in charge. Who can give orders to whom? When I was there, there were three different European Union offices- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) says that that is no surprise, but there are five or six British offices each thinking that they are doing the British Government's work, and I question the level of co-ordination. We know that efforts were made to engage the services of Lord Ashdown. I would have welcomed that, but it was rejected by President Karzai. Do we have efficient joined-up government in Afghanistan?
	Those on the Opposition Front Bench say that by creating a so-called war Cabinet they would focus attention on Afghanistan. I politely suggest that they should find a word other than "war" to use. We are winning battle after battle: when British troops take on the Taliban face to face, there is only one winner, despite the sad sacrifices that are made. But the notion that we will win a war in Afghanistan commands no serious support anywhere, even among those who support our presence there. If the Opposition create a war Cabinet, they may be asking it to achieve the unachievable. Surely we should be thinking more of containment than of confrontation-I think that the shadow Secretary of State made that point. We should see this in the context of what happened after the second world war, when there was a sense among some that we could confront, take on and roll back ideologies that were oppressive and opposed to our way of life, not to mention supporting military and violent action against western interests all over the world. But wiser heads prevailed, and we adopted a philosophy of containment rather than military destruction.
	I continually wonder why the British are taking more casualties-in proportion to the number of troops present-than any other nation save Canada, and incidentally I pay tribute to the Canadian troops too. I regret that the Conservative Canadian Government have set a deadline for pulling their troops out, but I doubt that if a Liberal Administration were to be elected next year, there would be any change in policy. I am not a military expert, but I wonder why it is necessary for so many British servicemen to fall in action or to come home with hideous and life-crippling wounds. We may have to ask our military whether they have got their strategy quite right.
	There has been much talk about Pakistan and the solution to Afghanistan. In part, I accept that Pakistan must be involved, but there will be no solution in Pakistan until India changes its strategic approach in the area. According to a report  Le Monde on 8 January,  The Times of India reported a secret conclave of the Indian general staff at Simla in December, at which they discussed the double-front strategy-an assault on both China and Pakistan. General Kapoor, the Indian chief of staff, has talked about a limited military attack on Pakistan, but it is beyond belief that a fellow Commonwealth country and nuclear-armed power-and a democracy to boot-can be talking about a military assault or invasion on Pakistan, when we need Pakistan to focus on Afghanistan.

Denis MacShane: There is no doubt that the ISI was the godfather-if not the mother and father-of the Taliban back in the 1990s, and after 1987, because the international community failed to fill the vacuum left by the Soviets. I agree, but of course in 1989 democracy was suspended in Kashmir, and 500,000 Indian troops moved in. Since then, between 50,000 and 70,000 people have been killed in probably the biggest bloodbath of Muslims in recent times under the Indian army occupation. Some of that was in response to Pakistan-initiated terrorism-the horrible explosions at Srinagar and elsewhere, but India is not even on the way to finding a political solution to the problem of Kashmir, and it is under pressure given the Bombay massacres and other issues. When the Pakistani army faces on its eastern flank an army of up to 500,000, national security demands that it put the bulk-80 per cent.-of its armed forces there. We would like as many Pakistani soldiers as possible on the north-western front to sort out the insurgency there and to end the protected area for the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaeda and the people moving across to cause trouble in Afghanistan.
	As long as India refuses to talk or to find a political and peaceful solution-I am not talking about any transfer of sovereignty, but about finding a way forward; India is by far the biggest country in that region-of course, Pakistan should do a lot more. However, we must be careful not to typecast Pakistan as somehow an Afghanistan in waiting. I am utterly appalled at the ugly, invented acronym, "Afpak", that Richard Holbrooke used at the Munich security conference last year, as though Afghanistan and Pakistan are one combined problem. It is a racist, unpleasant acronym, and I am glad to say that I know, from recent visits to Washington and from talking to senior officials from both the State and Defence Departments, that they do not use it any more. We need to involve India more in finding a regional solution.
	I welcome the Turkish conference that has been mentioned. Frankly, we have to try to tease out our worries about Iran and its potential possession of nuclear weapons. I hope that on Iran at least there is some agreement that weapons of mass destruction are being planned for in that country. Most of Iran's drug problems stem from heroin being transported west towards Iran, just as most of China's drug problems stem from heroin coming east from Afghanistan. Both Pakistan and India suffer from serious drug problems, so all those big regional countries have an enormous stake in finding a solution to the Afghanistan situation.
	We should try to understand that Pakistan has a vibrant press and a vibrant judiciary. They forced out General Musharraf when we were rolling out the red carpet for him. It is an imperfect democracy- [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is certainly the finest Foreign Secretary that we have got at the moment, and who does know where western Sahara is, has been in post for only a year or two, probably since General Musharraf departed.

Denis MacShane: I am sorry, my right hon. Friend met him, so they overlapped slightly. Prior to that, the leading Governments of the world-here and in Washington and elsewhere-were not paying enough heed to the people of Pakistan who were anxious to get rid of their unelected and authoritarian general.
	Pakistan has a vibrant civil society and a very good, free and energetic press. It has a strong women's movement and a strong human rights movement. Yes, it is very poor, so the real answer is to improve Pakistan's economic and growth perspectives. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on pushing the European Union hard to open a dialogue and to try to increase trade between Pakistan and the rest of Europe. That is certainly where we should focus some of our efforts with our Pakistani and Kashmiri diaspora, of whom I know many in my constituency. They are men and women of peace-there is a Sufi version of the strand or path of Islam-and they are as horrified as any of us are by the language of jihad and fundamental Islamism.
	We have to look again at the ideology that spurs on the Taliban and other extremists. That ideology is not of the Islam religion, which has the same respect as any other Abrahamic faith, but is a coherent world ideology of Islamism that is rooted in the Muslim brotherhood that was founded by Hassan al-Banna in the 1920s and that has developed steadily since.  [ Interruption. ] I hear again complaints from Conservative Members about my discussing Islamism as an ideology, but it is precisely the failure to understand that ideology and to work out ideological and political ways of confronting and exposing it that have left western countries vulnerable.

Bill Rammell: I know that it is always customary to sum up by saying that we have had a good debate, but this time that has genuinely been the case. What has struck me most forcefully is the enormous degree of consensus that exists across the House. That unity is insufficiently recognised in the wider public domain, particularly in the media. It could be that we are all wrong and misguided. However, I happen to think that MPs across the House, having looked at the issues in enormous detail, recognise the centrality of what is happening in Afghanistan to our safety and security. In the short time available, I want to respond to some of the points that have been made.
	I agreed with a lot of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, particularly the tribute that he paid to the Estonians and the Danes, who are making an enormous contribution alongside us in Helmand. The fact that we are in an international coalition, with 44 nations currently taking part, is often under-recognised in the public debate. I also agreed with him about the impact on Pakistan and the importance of that country. I have no doubt whatever that were we precipitously to withdraw from Afghanistan before it was safe to do so, there would be a return of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda capability in Afghanistan, and a massive flow of refugees across the border into Pakistan, making that country-a country that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, possesses nuclear weapons-more unstable. That underlines the risk that we face.
	However, I would take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments about British troops handing over Basra to the United States. We handed over responsibility to the Iraqi forces, which was the right thing to do in the circumstances. It was done through agreements and our troops made an enormous contribution.
	Like me, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who leads for the Liberal Democrats, underlined at the beginning of his contribution the increasing consensus that exists on the issue across all parties in the House. That is welcome. He asked a number of specific questions about the London conference and the possible participation of China, Iran, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia. All have been invited, but not all have yet replied. It is certainly our hope that all those countries will take part.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about the lack of knowledge and understanding of the Taliban. Given the nature of the Taliban, and the fact that it is, in many senses, a secret organisation, that point has plausibility on one level. However, we are doing our level best to get a genuine understanding of the Taliban. We certainly need to understand more, particularly if we are to follow the process of political reconciliation being led by the Afghan Government, in which those elements of the Taliban who are prepared to renounce violence can become part of the solution, rather than being part of the problem.

Julian Brazier: In a word, no. The promoters of the Bill do not believe that we are close to Government legislation in this area.  [Interruption.] It appears to me that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), is nodding. Also, although I know that the Opposition Front-Bench team is sympathetic on this issue, I do not believe that it would be a high priority for an incoming Conservative Government. This is a specific problem for a few localities. As it is not a general problem around the country, it is inevitable that no central Government will give it a particularly high priority.
	The sad fact is that in a congested and popular city centre such as Canterbury's, which has narrow cobbled streets, the activities of people using peddling licences are playing a significant role in contributing to congestion. More importantly, their activities are undermining the position of the 13 traders who pay a great deal of money each year for their legitimate street licences and that of the many shops on our high street that are close to the economic edge in this recession.
	I do not wish to repeat the arguments made in the earlier debates, but I wish to address one particular matter. There are two differences between the Canterbury Bill and the Nottingham Bill, about which we will hear shortly. The more important of those relates to the issue of touting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) devoted a great deal of some of his earlier speeches. I made it clear then that I was sympathetic to his points about touting. The provisions are designed to address a difficult and unpleasant, but extremely narrow, point. However, as drafted, they would have potentially far-reaching consequences, and I would be very worried about what a future non-Conservative Administration, should we have the misfortunate to have one in Canterbury, could do with them. I therefore obtained an absolute assurance from the promoter of the Bill, Canterbury city council, that it will strike out the touting clause in another place.

Kevin Brennan: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is always courteous.
	The Government understand the desire of these local authorities to bolster their enforcement powers when faced with traders who seek to hide behind a pedlar's certificate as a means of frustrating the gathering of evidence on street trading offences. The House is aware that, prompted by a number of local authorities who seek the additional powers that these Bills include, the Government, as he mentioned, undertook research into the perceptions of, and application of, the current national and local regimes. We are now in the process of consulting on possible proposals for changes to the national regime. The ideas explored in the consultation included: whether there is a national need to extend enforcement powers for local authorities so that they can better tackle illegal street traders without unduly restricting legitimate pedlary; how more clarity can be achieved between the legitimate activities of certified pedlars and practices that seek to frustrate the enforcement of street-trading rules; how the pedlars regime might usefully be modernised to achieve a clearer fit with street-trading laws and to make the certification process more comprehensive, to provide better access to records of certificates and to help pedlars to go about their legitimate business where they are entitled to do so; the subject of guidance on the application of the current regime, which research found that all parties would find useful as there is widespread misunderstanding of what constitutes legitimate pedlar activity and what constitutes illegal street trading; and how we can maintain the national nature of a genuine pedlar's permission to trade while meeting the valid concerns of some local authorities about being able to control the level of trading activity in relation to special events or, in particular, to areas where too much trading has an adverse effect. The consultation period ends on 12 February and we will publish the Government's response in due course.

Christopher Chope: Before my hon. Friend allows the impression to be given that all pedlars operate against the interests of charity, will he accept that one particular pedlar with whom I have been in contact, Frankie Fernando has, under his pedlar certificate, raised significant sums of money for charity?

Edward Davey: The national legislation could make the necessary reconciliation in the Act, so I do not see any problem there whatever. Indeed, a key point on which I hope to command support across the House, is that the national legislation, when it comes, should respect the needs of individual local authorities to legislate through byelaws in a way that suits their areas, towns and city centres. I would hope that a one-size-fits-all approach would not emerge. That is very important.
	We have heard about the differences between circumstances in Canterbury and in Weston-super-Mare. I can confirm that the situation in the town centre of Kingston, in my constituency, is probably very different from that in Canterbury or in Weston-super-Mare. In Kingston, there are regularly street traders and pedlars-probably not as regularly as in Canterbury, but on most weekends and some weekdays. It would be a welcome new freedom for the local authority to be able to decide whether to take action on this matter, as long as that ability was not killed by some overarching, over-prescriptive, over-bureaucratic national framework; it must be an enabling framework. That could be advantageous.
	In Kingston, we had the experiment of having the first business improvement district in the country. There are now many other BIDs, but Kingston First was the first. I sat on the Committee that considered the Government Bill that introduced BIDs. The resulting legislation has enabled, with a number of different local authorities going ahead with measures, other authorities to work out what is right for them. One size has not fitted all with the BID approach to local economic management and development, and neither should one size fit all with this type of measure. The success of those initiatives suggests that we must be as flexible as possible if we go down the national framework route.

Philip Davies: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about localism being broadly a good thing, but under the measures a pedlar's certificate would entitle the holder to act under its authority anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Given that the two Bills on which we are concentrating today differ from each other and from the other Bills that we will be considering later, it would be difficult for any pedlar who wished to use a certificate that he has obtained legitimately to do his work in different parts of the United Kingdom, because he would have to look through clauses such as those in the Bill to see what they could or could not do in each local area? Is not that a difficult thing to expect them to do?

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. It shows the disproportionate impact on pedlars of their activities being restricted so they cannot operate in town centres. My earlier point took account of that, but I was also pointing out that an increasing number of people who sell from door to door are effectively found to be not authorised pedlars but rogue pedlars.
	In the letter from the leader of Manchester city council, Sir Richard Leese, and in an identical letter sent to different recipients by Sir Howard Bernstein, the chief executive of that council, in which they seek the support of colleagues and invite other local authorities to put pressure on their Members of Parliament to support not only the Manchester City Council Bill, which we are obviously not considering today, but the two Bills that we are discussing, they make the point that there is a "growing problem" of illegal street trading in their areas. The analysis attached to the letter states that problems include large groups of individuals
	"selling goods such as balloons, flags, whistles etc from large, wheeled stalls."
	The point that I have sought to make in these debates is that the problem has to do with the large wheeled stalls. If we say that it is not possible for pedlars to take such stalls into city centres, much of the mischief described in the letter from Manchester city council and other submissions would be addressed. Pedlars could still operate in town centres, but they could not use the large wheeled stalls that inevitably cause obstruction. I can understand the concerns about those stalls.
	The definition of pedlars includes hawkers, but history shows that they were covered by separate provisions. Hawkers rather than pedlars could be described as people who operate from large wheeled stalls, but the Bill places them all under the same umbrella.
	One way to deal with that would be to revert to the traditional understanding of what a pedlar is-namely, a person who carries the goods on his person. That is reflected in the consultation document that the Government have produced. It is more generous than the amendments to the Bills for Leeds and Reading that I have negotiated, in that it says that the equipment that pedlars take into town centres should be much restricted in size but not removed totally.
	In a sense, we are all on the same wavelength. I think the Minister agrees, and that it is why it is especially regrettable that these Bills, even though they acknowledge that the main problem lies with the people who use large wheeled stalls, make no provision to help the traditional pedlar-the person on his own or with a very small receptacle-to continue to operate in city centres.

Philip Davies: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), without whose herculean efforts the voice of pedlars would never have been heard in this House? No matter which side of the fence hon. Members are on in this debate or how they might vote if the matter is pressed to a Division, I am sure they agree that he has done a tremendous job of bringing the legitimate concerns that many people have about these Bills to the House.
	I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who does what he always does, which is do what he genuinely believes is in the best interests of the people of Canterbury. He should be commended on that. The same goes for the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is doing what he believes is in the best interests of his city and his constituents. I am sure he would agree that his case was ably made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) in his contribution.
	I am concerned about the Bills for a number of reasons, which I shall go through with reference to various clauses. I am particularly concerned about clause 4 of the Nottingham City Council Bill. Whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has agreed with his council to make the concession on ticket touting-as he would accept, the measure slightly muddied the waters of the overall debate-a measure on ticket touting is still in clause 4 of the Nottingham City Council Bill. That is most unfortunate. I hope that Nottingham city council will reflect, as my hon. Friend and his council did, on whether it is worth pursuing that measure.
	I was struck by my hon. Friend's remarks clause 4 when he spoke of clause 4's compatibility with the services directive. I am not one to stand up in Parliament and say that the House should concern itself with ensuring that its legislation meets the approval of the European Union-indeed, as many people know, I would much prefer to be out of the wretched European Union altogether-but we are where we are.

Philip Davies: I regret giving way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to resist the temptation in future should he catch my eye.
	We are where we are on European legislation-unfortunately-and it is perfectly clear that any legislation that the House passes today must meet the services directive. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury made a compelling case, which I did not hear anyone deny, that the ticket touting aspect of the Bill does not meet the requirements of the services directive. I do not see how the House can pass legislation that we know, in our heart of hearts, cannot be maintained, justified and sustained in a court of law. That would be an entirely pointless exercise. That is one very deep concern I have about clause 4. I was not aware of the problem before, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the House aware of it.
	I am particularly concerned with clause 4 of the Nottingham City Council Bill, which clearly states that it would deny people the chance of
	"purchasing...or offering to purchase any ticket for gain or reward".
	Why on earth Nottingham city council has taken it upon itself to determine the law relating to ticket touting in its Bill is beyond me. This ill-considered-in fact, barely considered-provision would drive a coach and horses through the law on ticket touting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch generously mentioned in his speech, I am a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee which had an inquiry into the merits of ticket touting only last year. We took huge swathes of evidence from consumers, people involved in the industry and ticket touts themselves-including those who work on street corners and those with websites-as well as the Office of Fair Trading, which has made it clear that it believes that touting acts in the best interests of consumers and it has no reason to want to try to ban it. In fact, there have been very few cases in which anybody trying to restrict the selling on of tickets has taken a case to court, because such cases are very flimsy and would not be allowed. However, Nottingham city council has decided to put the subject in the middle of clause 4 of its Bill.
	The touting provision could lead to a ridiculous situation for someone who bought a ticket for a large event in Nottingham. I am aware that Nottingham Forest and Notts County are not as well supported as they were in their heyday a few years ago, but the latter are back on the way up, and the former are doing better than they were-

Philip Davies: I do not wish to bore you or the House with the recent performance of the Nottingham football teams, so I shall move to the point that I was trying to make.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend may or may not be right about that. I am not particularly well up on the procurement activities of the diplomatic service when it comes to tickets for events. He may know more than I do. I am making the case that ticket touting and a secondary market in tickets are in the best interests of consumers on both sides of the fence. Other people may take a different view, but I am passionately against the Bills because they drive a coach and horses through the principle of ticket touting.
	A more general point is that whatever people's view about the desirability or otherwise of ticket touting and selling, it would sure be nonsensical to have a different law relating to Nottingham from those that apply in any other part of the country. It would bring laws passed in this House into utter contempt if, after the House had expressed an opinion on whether something was a good thing that acted in the interests of consumers, one particular city decided to do something completely different on a matter of national importance.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but on this particular issue he has perhaps given the impression that touting benefits only rich people who pay over the odds for tickets. Quite often there is an oversupply of tickets and people can buy them at a discount, which enables them to go to events that they would not normally be able to afford to.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Is he aware that the mean difference travelled per day by a pedlar is 95 miles, that the medium is 66 miles and that on average a pedlar visits 25 cities a year? How could the average pedlar know which regulations apply in which part of the country?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend may be right or may be wrong. It is difficult to know at this stage the main motivation behind these provisions, but he raises a very good point. I fear that the powers given to local authorities by these Bills will inevitably lead to some people on the council using them as a money-raising exercise, perhaps to plug the financial hole that will no doubt be left in local government because the Government are spent up and there is no money in the kitty for the future. I worry about the full implications of that.
	In summary, these two Bills are flawed on many levels. I do not doubt the honourable intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, as they are clearly trying to do what is best for their local areas, but we must also consider the bigger picture of national law. Whatever aspect of the Bills that Members may be unhappy or nervous about-pedlars or ticket touting, for example-given that the Government have consultations under way on all these matters with responses from both sides of the argument, which they are considering very thoroughly, it would be premature to pass legislation in this way at this stage.
	When legislation passes through the House, many organisations employ expensive lobbyists and have powerful groups to argue on their behalf. Pedlars are a disparate group by definition, and they probably do not have the resources to employ expensive lobbyists to argue on their behalf. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has done a tremendous job in arguing their point of view, but even with that, and with the reports and the research he has shared with us, I fear we are in danger of passing legislation without fully understanding its implications for pedlars.

Joan Ryan: I am very grateful for the opportunity to bring the continuing incarceration of my constituent, Mr. Andrew Symeou, to the attention of the House and of the Minister for Europe.
	As the Minister will know, Andrew, a 21-year-old man, has now been detained in Greece for nearly six months. His ordeal, however, began more than 18 months ago when the arrest warrant was first issued. Since then, I have been working closely with Andrew and his family. In that time, I have raised the issue with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and other Ministers. I have led a delegation to the Greek embassy and made representations to Ministers in Athens, and I am in frequent contact with consular staff in Greece. Yet Andrew still languishes in a prison that most international observers agree is one of the worst in Europe, denied bail and left with no information about when the case will come to court and, therefore, offered no end in sight. In the words of Andrew's family and friends, who took their concerns to the Greek embassy on Saturday, enough is enough.
	This Adjournment debate therefore comes at a crucial time and offers an opportunity for me to represent my constituent and raise these very serious issues directly with the Minister.
	I have two main concerns about Andrew's detention to raise this evening: first, the refusal of the Greek authorities to grant Andrew bail; and secondly, the number of inconsistencies and anomalies in the case file, which Andrew's legal team have obtained. When taken together, those suggest that, at best, there has been a serious abuse of process in the gathering of evidence and the production of written statements, and at worst that evidence has been manipulated and sometimes fabricated to incriminate Andrew falsely.
	More to the point, even though those concerns have been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Greek authorities, they have been dismissed out of hand, which I believe raises real doubts about whether Andrew can expect to receive a fair trial. If the Greek authorities are unwilling or unable credibly to investigate those issues, it is incumbent on the British Government to raise them directly with the Greek Government.
	At the outset, however, it might be useful briefly to set out the background to the case. In the early hours of Friday 20 July 2007, Jonathan Hiles, a young man from Wales, on the eve of his 19th birthday, was punched and fell from a stage at the Rescue nightclub on the island of Zakynthos. A few days later, he tragically died in hospital in Athens. Almost a year later, on 26 June 2008, my constituent, Andrew Symeou, was arrested under the European arrest warrant and charged with the manslaughter of Jonathan Hiles.
	More than a year later, on 23 July 2009, Andrew was extradited to Greece, where he has been detained since. Until November, he was detained in a juvenile prison in Avlona. Since then, he has been held at the notorious maximum security Korydallos prison. Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations have repeatedly raised serious concerns about conditions in Korydallos, which they believe amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, including poor hygiene in cells, lack of access to association, fresh air, exercise facilities and prompt medical treatment.
	Andrew, a student at Bournemouth university, with a bright future, no history whatever of law-breaking and a string of impeccable testimonials and character references from his teachers, is now forced to share a cell with convicted murderers, rapists and drug smugglers. He has twice been denied bail, even though he has, at every stage of the investigation, fully co-operated with the police, and even though his uncle, who has a property in Athens, has offered his home as a fixed address where Andrew could reside.
	In the first instance, Andrew was denied bail on the ground that he is a foreign national-he was therefore perceived to be a flight risk. The European convention on human rights, to which Greece is a signatory, makes clear that discrimination on the basis of national origin is unlawful. An appeal was lodged against the refusal of bail. For months, neither my constituent nor his legal team, never mind British officials in Greece, who inquired about the status of the application on a number of occasions, were given any information about when the appeal was likely to be heard. In fact, the appeal was denied before my constituent or his legal team were actually informed that an appeal was taking place-before Andrew's lawyer could make any oral arguments to the judge, and before Andrew was given the right to defend himself or argue his case.
	Article 6 of the ECHR provides defendants with the right to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their choosing. When Andrew was finally informed that his application for bail had been refused, he was informed only in Greek. He was given a document written in Greek and told by one of the prison guards to sign it, even though he could not read it. When he initially refused, he was told he had no choice. When Andrew requested that the document be sent to his lawyer, the guard refused. When Andrew asked to speak to his parents, the guard said no. Under the European convention on human rights, detainees have an unambiguous and unqualified legal right to receive any documentation pertaining to their case in a language they understand. But Andrew was not afforded this right.
	Andrew's legal team in the UK is currently preparing an application to the European Court of Human Rights on these grounds. But we know that applications of this kind can take months, if not years, to be processed. If the Greek authorities will not give Andrew a fair hearing, who will ensure that his rights are protected? Surely the British Government have a duty to step in when the rights of their citizens are threatened? On that precise point, can I ask the Minister to make representations to the Greek authorities requesting that a date is set for Andrew's trial promptly and that the decision not to grant him bail pending trial is reconsidered and that he is it?
	There are, in addition, serious inconsistencies in the case file, which my constituent's legal team has obtained, and which it believes are suggestive of a serious abuse of process. The case file that allegedly implicates Andrew consists of witness statements given by seven individuals. Two of these statements were given by friends of Andrew on 24 July. They were held at the police station for more than eight hours, deprived of food and water, beaten-allegedly-and threatened by police officers until they gave false statements implicating Andrew. This was reported to the British embassy in Greece at the time, although, as I understand it, the case was never pursued. The friends have, in addition, subsequently returned to Greece in June 2009 and testified, under oath, that the statements they gave were false and only obtained under duress. Both young men have made it clear that they did not see who punched Jonathan Hiles.
	More worrying, though, is that even though the public prosecutor is aware of the allegations, she has so far refused to acknowledge that anything of the sort could possibly have ever happened. In her proposal to the judicial counsel of Zante, without even bothering to have investigated the allegations, which all of us would agree are serious in their own right and clearly relevant to the case against Andrew, she dismisses the allegations out of hand as "trite" and claims that
	"nothing of the kind had occurred."
	How can she assert with such confidence and certainty that nothing of the kind occurred, if the allegations have never been investigated? If this is the cavalier attitude to justice that Andrew can anticipate when the case comes to court, how can he expect to receive a fair trial?
	The other five witness statements in the case file were given by friends of Jonathan Hiles. They too suggest an abuse of process in the gathering of evidence and the production of written statements. These five statements, which were taken at different times on different days, are word-for-word identical-not just similar, not just alike, but word-for-word identical. How likely is it that five witnesses being interviewed at different times on different days would provide officers with statements that are word-for-word identical?
	When the details are probed further, even more discrepancies come to light. On all of the statements that were taken, the name of the officer is recorded. When the five statements are put together, they show that Zante police officers were, somehow, holding interviews with different individual witnesses at the very same time. That is not simply improbable, unlikely or suspicious: it is a physical impossibility. Those officers could not have been in different places at the same time. What gives me greater cause for concern is the fact that the statements bear no resemblance to statements that were subsequently given to South Wales police as part of a coroner's inquiry into Jonathan's death. Four of the five remaining witnesses have categorically stated that they did not see who punched Jonathan, but in their statements to police in Zante each one of the witnesses allegedly says, in reference to Andrew:
	"I identified with complete certainty and I am absolutely sure that the individual shown...is the perpetrator".
	By contrast, in their statements to South Wales police, the same witnesses deny having ever seen who punched Jonathan. One witness said:
	"I did not recognise anybody on these photos...as I said I didn't see the incident".
	The only witness who did say that he saw Jonathan being punched described the perpetrator as being over six feet tall and blond. Neither of those descriptions bears any resemblance whatever to Andrew. So, of the seven witness statements that allegedly implicate him, two have since been withdrawn, four are contradicted by statements made in the UK in which the same witnesses categorically state that they did not see who punched Jonathan, and one-the only witness statement in which a perpetrator is actually identified-describes an attacker who bears no resemblance to Andrew.
	I understand that the British Government have no direct jurisdiction over the judicial affairs of another country, but when the rights of one of our citizens are threatened, the Government have a duty to step in. It is no consolation to tell my constituent that all this will come to light in any subsequent trial. If the Greek authorities refuse to acknowledge, let alone investigate, any wrongdoing by the police, even though there is considerable evidence to suggest there has been some, if they abuse Andrew's rights by denying him legal advice and refusing him bail and if they refuse to question him or to afford him the right to defend himself against the allegations, why should he believe that he will receive a fair trial? All that he and his family have ever sought is a fair hearing. Andrew has never sought to avoid the opportunity to clear his name; nor has he tried to avoid justice. He has made it clear on countless occasions that he is willing to co-operate with the police. Indeed, his legal team have contacted Scotland Yard and South Wales police and urged them to investigate. Those are not the actions of someone who is trying to avoid justice.
	Surely, wherever they are in the world, any British citizen who is pursuing justices should be able rely on their Government to uphold their most basic rights. In this case, the potential for suffering is obvious and the need for justice is urgent. In the absence of any legal impediment that prevents them from doing so, surely the British Government have an obligation to take up Andrew's case-and Jonathan's case-with the Greek authorities. Today, we reflect not only on the detention of Andrew Symeou, but on the tragic and untimely death of Jonathan Hiles and the suffering that it has brought to his family and friends. Jonathan can not face a jury; his life was cut short in an act of mindless and senseless violence, but his memory deserves justice, as do his friends and family. They deserve better than this shoddy investigation that is so obviously marred by inconsistencies and anomalies. Another injustice will bring them no comfort. It is in the interest of everyone-Andrew, the family and friends of Jonathan Hiles and the Greek judicial system itself-for this case to be fully and openly investigated, but that will not be possible unless and until the British Government make representations in the clearest possible terms to the Greek authorities to prevent a miscarriage of justice. One young man has lost his life, and I urge the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that we do not ruin the life of another.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Watts.)